195 Comments

You got to be kidding Romney makes more in 2 Days than I make in a year. 15% of that is nothing, considering the percent of Taxes I pay for the Income I earn compared to him which is alot less especially since I pay a social Security Tax on all my income and he pays only on the first $106,800 of his income. $21,600,000 - $106,800 = $21,503,200 exempt from Social Security Taxes and we wonder why the Social Security Trust is going broke, It because crooked politicians have so skewed the tax burden on the Middle Class that we can't possibly maintain it.

there are dozens upon dozes of links I could have put up. If you weren't such a slave to Fucksnews, and had even two brain cells communicating with each other in your head, you could have found them too before posting your Idiocy here.

You stupid shit. Your OP is about percentages, not dollar amounts. That's the measure of "cheapness". How much of what you earned, not how much total. And Mittens had an income nearly 20 times that of Obama. If Obama had donated every penny he earned last year, It couldn't have matched 10% of Mitem's hoard.

Show me a link to ANY report about Obama's charitable giving in 2011. Since his tax return ISN'T FILED YET for 2011, you have NO credible source. You are a LYING SHIT.

Who said anything about redistributing anything. Being a community organizer is about helping people in a variety of ways. It could be starting a community garden, or getting pro-bono legal services fro clients, or finding medical programs for them, or finding school funding fro local schools, or creating a book drive for a local library.

But IF he helped them reclaim some of what the 1% redistributed to itself, GREAT!

Man, you can't read. His family's income was 250 THOUSAND dollars a year, combined with his wife's. And no, it doesn't bother me at all. He spent his time as a community organizer, helping people directly through his efforts ever day. He didn't inherit millions and make a vast fortune buying and selling companies and putting people out of work.

And nowhere does it say how much the Obamas gave to causes that weren't deductible. As their income grew, so did the percentage of it they gave to charities, deductible charities.

No he's not greedy. That is why he creates all of those jobs. He's generous. Why, since he left Bain Capital he has continued to pay less taxes, because of the "carried interest" loop hole just so he, like all of the other job creators, can keep creating those jobs. So, we should ignore Bain Capital. Look at all of the jobs Mittens has created since then. He created jobs in the Cayman Islands. He created jobs in the Switzerland. How many jobs was that in the Cayman's again? Help me with that. And then there were all of those that he created in Switzerland, why right here alone there must have been, how many? A thousand? a hundred? one? There must have been at least one? Possibly more. Didn't a limo pick him up at the airport in Zurich? Yeah, and then there was the bell boy that carried his bag with the cash he came to deposit to his room. And room service! How about that? So, you see. That's how job creation works. Twenty five million here, to be deposited, twenty five million there and just look at the jobs. Greed no, I call that generosity. You gotta admire that.

Wonder how many job creators like that it would take to create those twenty million jobs we need? Hmmmm?

Nah. My charity stance can be twisted, as you have done, but you still don't want to share the profits. Right? You still don't want to value labor in a manner that would allow the workers of America to live decent lives without needing charity. Do you now?

Charity is a weapon of the oppressor. Unfettered Austrian capitalism is another.

So, I presumed correctly. I know you really believe in the free market. You think that is the way to go. I get that. But, you've never experienced an unregulated free-wheeling capitalist economy. No one has. The closest we've ever been to that is the Industrial Revolution. Think of Dickensian times.

Hello, Galt01. I thought I was responding to headlesscross. I suppose you believe in the free market as well. Lovely. Do you understand the basic premise of capitalism, that the owners of the means of production, the capitalists, exploit capital and labor to create profit? It's not complicated. If you do, then you will understand that if we were to ever implement an unregulated capitalist economy most of us would be screwed. The folks who already own the capital would control everything. It would be like I said, Dickensian. Yes he was a novelist, but I like novels. The word is in the dictionary it means squalid and poverty-stricken.

Now, I have posed this: Ask your libertarian leaders if they would be willing to even out every American, in terms of wealth, before implementing this unregulated free-wheeling capitalism. Do you think they would? I don't. I think they'd laugh because they know that they already have more capital than most and they'd be at a huge advantage when the new system is implemented. They'll never give that advantage away. They are not stupid and they don't like to share.

So, they try to win people over with all the sexy talk about social issues, being free to drink unpasteurized milk, and carry your guns, do your drugs, legalize prostitution, privatize the schools, privatize the roads, etc. etc. Don't tread on me! And, it works. It all sounds good but really, it stinks.

once again - redistributing wealth to even things out. Even if we did that - do you really think the equality would last very long? You presume all people have the same abilities, drive, intellect, desire etc. Within 5 years we'd be right back were we started. Please - equal opportunity - does not guarantee equal outcomes,

No. We would quickly be unequal again. I'd be on the losing end and so would most people like myself because I don't care about money. That is not the focus of my life. The capitalists would run me over. LOL!

My point is that the people who really understand Austrian economics know exactly what they are purporting. They would never ever agree to even everyone out because they fully understand the advantage they would have. Get this. If you don't have money libertarianism is not good for you. Stay away.

who's wealth are you talking about? mine? the wealth I worked for? what makes you entitled to my wealth? How about I stop creating wealth once the higher tax bracket kicks in and I've secured enough wealth for me and my family? what if I feel like any extra effort is just going to the government for them to waste on subsidizing you. On the other hand, maybe I wouldn't mind working more and directing my extra wealth to causes I deem worthy. After all I earned the money didn't I ? Or is everyone who earns more than minimum wage just a crook?

I'm talking about all of the wealth that has been created on the backs of the American worker. Are you aware that one-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year and that wages have declined over the past 10 years while profits are at an all time high? CEO's, who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the average worker's wage, today earn 343 times the average worker's wage. This is blatant corporate greed. The way labor is valued in this country needs to be changed. We need to make the economy work for the majority of people, not just the wealthy capitalists. If we had an economy that paid workers for the true value of their labor based on the profits it creates we would not need so much charity.

The 'true value' of the worker is determined not just by the profit it creates but also by a host of other factors. As long as the HR dept has not held a gun to a worker's head and forced him/her to work, I would say that the wages are a pretty good representation of the worker's true value.

No. Not at all. First of all, jobs are scarce which means employees have little power in setting their wages. Second of all, I believe an economy should work for the people not vice versa. Labor can be valued differently based on the outcome of profits from that labor, not simply the steps involved in the tasks the employee performs. There are many ways to value labor. We need to address this issue in this country so that we don't continue on this path of having 1 in 7 on food stamps, 22% of our children in poverty, etc. etc.

Sure, jobs are scarce. And scarcity is another determinant of salary. Just as low skilled workers are aplenty and therefore they get less wages, similarly high skilled workers are fewer and they get high wages.If you are among the very few possessing a particular skills, companies would have to pay you more. I don't see anyone complaining then. It's all demand and supply.

Labor IS valued based on the money it generates (revenues not profits btw. Just because a company is making loss does not devalue it's work force). But that is not the only factor, that's all I am trying to say.

Smartcapitalist, I would like you to think out-of-the box. Picture a new society where workers are primary. Can you do it? It would be great. We'd all be doing well, even the 1%. They'd still be great. We would eliminate poverty, no more need for food stamps. What is so hard to understand about this? It is revolutionary, yes, but times are a changing. Our economic system has become an anachronism. It is not working!

I am not sure what you mean by 'workers are primary'. If you want to form a collective (cooperative) where the company is run by the employees, you may still be able to put workers as primary; though even then different workers will have different contribution and there will always be the ones who resent and rise in protest at the alleged unfair treatment (like OWS). But even a co-operative has to put customer as primary if it needs to survive in the long run. Even in a LLC the organization would care for the benefit of workers as a whole and not for individual employees. Employees that dont perform will be booted out so that the other employees dont suffer.

For a corporation , increasing shareholder value is the most important goal. And to do that a company needs to hire the best people and keep them happy enough to deliver the best for their customers and thereby increase shareholder value. And that's what companies do. And people at the lower rung have always complained. I am sure the janitor at Google would not be too happy about his compensation. But Google engineers are happy.

If a company cares too much for employees at the expense of it's own financial health, it would in fact create more poverty because the company itself wont exist.

You're getting somewhere. I don't think increasing shareholder value HAS to be the most important goal. The economy could work differently. It could value workers (the masses) over the capitalists (the wealthy). I'm not saying take all the wealth away from the capitalists, but we could certainly find a way to prevent poverty and allow all people to lead decent lives.

I really don't understand your last sentence. Take Apple, for example, they have earned so much profit that they now have more money in the bank than the U.S. Treasury. So, how would it really have harmed Apple to put a little more money into labor by, say, keeping some jobs in America, or by paying the Chinese workers a bit more. They surely wouldn't close down because of taking a little less profit, would they?

It's is not possible to keep 'some' manufacturing jobs in US. It is an either or all game. You either have the whole ecosystem that helps manufacturing or you don't. And US as of now cannot do that. China will win. Just because Apple has money in the bank does not mean it should be giving it all away to charity

The correct word is ethics not morals. But the question is what is moral? Is it immoral for me to charge my clients 15% of all profits (and of course the 2% management fees)? Is 10% moral? Is 5% moral? Similarly, is it moral for my clients to just pay me 5% of profits only? why not 20% or even 50%? Would that be moral?

If I buy a share at $10 and sell it to a client for $100, is that immoral? The client is willing to pay and to him the share is worth $100 but it's worth $10 to the guy who sold it.

Also different people have different standards of morality. Everyone in Apple would have a different standard. Laws have a single standard that everyone accepts, morals don't. In fact, for a muslim trader charging of interest itself is immoral. Should he then wage a holy war against the trading floor?

Morals matter but enforcing them is tough and there is no common standard for morals. The CEO of Apple may think they should pay more, the CFO may think otherwise, the sales guy something else and so on.
Not just that arguing on morals is futile. When you attack a person's morals, you will never convince him/her.

Like i said doesnt matter what you and I think. Shareholders are the people who put money and what they want profits. If they had to do charity they would donate to UNICEF.

And yes I have heard this often from Occutards that people who disagree with them haven't opened their minds. Such level of self worth, and you call us in Wall Street arrogant.

The manufacturing units are not run by Apple and neither is Apple the sole customer of those manufacturing companies, so they cannot dictate remuneration policies even if they wanted to. Besides, the chinese workers are being paid what needs to be paid to keep them on the job. Those workers can always quit. If they aren't then their salaries are what they should be. Sure they may not be happy about it (even I would be happier if I got 10 times the bonus that I actually did) but you cant make everyone happy

Don't you think morals matter in business? I saw you post somewhere else recently that what businesses do are legal, not moral. Don't morals supercede what is legal? Are we not human beings first and foremost?

wealth has not been created on the backs of the American worker. No one owes you a living. Get over it. If you want to earn more money make yourself worth more. Everything is about we- we- we- what about you? What do you bring to the table?

Everything is not about you you you. There are people in this world, unlike you, who care about others and care about the well being of our society. And think we should look out for eachothers welfare and well being for the good of society as a whole. Everyone should be afforded good opportunities for jobs and prosperity. And when there has been 30 years of middle class wage stagnation and an enormous amount of wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few people, this is harmful to society. The people who hold such enormous amounts of wealth didn't necessarily get there because they are oh so great. They had alot of help from favorable government policies that they bought and paid for with their corruption of government. So there! Mr.Oh so Mean and Selfish man person!

That's the misconception you leftists have about Conservatives. We believe it is better to teach a man to fish, you believe in just giving a man my fish. You keep talking about the concentration of wealth in the 1%. Obama talks about taxing millionaires & billionaires, then when you see the actual policy - he wants to raise taxes on people earning 200K and up. Why doesn't he use that figure more often in his speeches?

You misunderstand my point completely. It wouldn't even be necessary to give a man a fish, support families with government assistance, if there were good job opportunities available at all levels of society so that people could provide for themselves. Wouldn't that be preferable? The government has a role in providing an economic foundation and environment so that good opportunities are available.

President Obama's plan that he discussed last night is based on the Buffet rule. It's a proposal, a starting point. The figure is $250k, not $200k. And whether he says $250k now and what the final figure might end up being are two entirely different things. I have little doubt that the figure will go up. It's called leaving room for negotiation with a dysfunctional Congress, and House controlled by Republicans who behave as if they would fight to their very death before raising taxes at all, despite overwhelming 73% support for tax increases on the wealthy, who recognize the tax structure is fundamentally unfair and unhealthy for society to continue the flow of wealth to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

And since you like to talk about Conservatives v Liberals so much, the Conservatives conveniently forget that President Reagan even raised taxes on the wealthy and would probably do it again today, based on his ideas and principles when he as President. Yet Conservatives today seem to think this will somehow be the end of the very world as we know it!

Going to war, sending thousands of people to sacrifice their lives in questionable and costly wars is absolutely fine with most Conservatives. But ask the wealthiest Conservartives to sacrifice a little of their wealth to pay a little bit higher taxes for the good of our country, thats where they draw the line. Sacrificing someone elses lives is ok. Sacrificing a little bit of their own money is a more horrible fate than death! This kind of thinking is deplorable and sickening.

Somehow, everyone managed to get along just fine after President Reagan raised tax rates on the wealthy. The world didn't stop turning and spin off its axis. And the wealthy were still wealthy. Nobody is asking wealthy Conservatives to risk their lives for their country. It's just money.

250K for families 200K for an individual. Anyway - how does that creat jobs? When Reagan left office the top rate was 28%. Down from 70% when he started. If it's just money why are you so obsessed with it? Answer - because it's not yours and you want some of it.

You like living in a country where 22% of children live in poverty. That's where we differ. I don't. I'd prefer those kids parents had jobs that paid a living wage. I think our nation has enough wealth to go around. The only greedy, entitled people in this country are the corporations and the wealthy who know damn well they control our government and our economy.

i didn't object to food stamps. where do you get that from?
people do not starve to death in the USA.
higher taxes on what you consider to be the "rich" and you still can't run the govt for more than 1 month.
Spending is the problem.

Spending on what? Clearly you refer to social spending, which you have disparaged time and again.

And NEWS FLASH: People are starving in this country right now. People are homeless right now. 45,000 people die every year simply from lack of access to health care. In some parts of the country, due to poverty alone, there is a higher rate of infant mortality than in Calcutta.

there are no people starving in the usa. i repeat,........there are food stamps, welfare , free clinics, section 8 housing ( the govt pays the rent). i can't force people to avail themselves of these things.

I repeat, there IS starvation in America today. Food stamps are meagre. Many communities, food stamps or not, have little access to fresh food. Free clinics do NOT exist everywhere. Welfare was ended during the Clinton administration, and section 8 housing is so scarce there are are over a million homeless FAMILiES in the country. And the punitive requirement to get onto most of these programs block millions from being ABLE to avail themselves.

If you believe otherwise, you must be living in a parallel universe. Life is grim for millions of your fellow citizens here, without a way out.

You are a moron completely out of touch with reality. In New York alone, the waiting list for Section 8 housing is - as a minimum - over two years. In the meantime, people are on the streets. That's IF they qualify. And there is LESS THAN HALF section 8 housing than there are qualified applicants. Free clinics are incredibly scarce, (and non-existent for single adults in New Jersey) and most of the few around don't provide free labs or free medicine. So you can get diagnosed - maybe - and then can't get the meds to make you better. In most urban areas there are not enough beds in the shelters ti house half the need. A single person must take in less that $10,000 a year to qualify for TANF, and in the meantime they lose their homes, since rent plus food plus transportation plus laundry (let alone clothes, which is out of the question) costs much more than that in most parts of the country. And without an address, one cannot qualify for welfare. In New York, if one becomes disabled, your application is AUTOMATICALLY denied, not once, but the first THREE TIMES you apply. Disabled people must find a way to appeal, with expensive lawyers they can't afford, three times before they are approved. The process typically takes a YEAR. And that's only if they find money for a lawyer while not working and ill. And thelast Mayor shut down the Disablility offices in every borough except the Bronx, so if you lived in Brooklyn or Queens you would have to travel at least an hour to get there. If you lived on Staten Island, at least two hours or more each way. While Ill. And for nothing. For a year.

You have NO idea what you're talking about. You have NEVER been CLOSE to being in that position or even knowing people who were. I hope, I really hope, that some day you lose everything, not to make you suffer, but to make you human. As of now you are not part of the species.

you're living on another planet.No one is homless unless they want to be.section 8 housing is not scarce. clinton did not end welfare , he reformed it.food stamps meager? 48 millon people are on food stamps. there is NO starvation in this country.

Theres a lot more to poverty than single parent households, is the point.

There is a severe shortage of living-wage jobs which means that many poor adults must work two, three, or four jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, poor working adults spend more hours working each week than their wealthier counterparts. So yes, when there is lack of job opportunities for people to properly provide for their families basic necessities, yes, the government needs to provide public housing support, and other support service like you said. Its just not so simple as you say that it is due to single parent households. There are lots of struggling single and double parent households that have seen their wages stagnate for 30 years while more and more wealth flows and is conentrated at the top.

THe # one factor for winding up in poverty is being born into poverty.

The US lags behind most of the developed world in intergenerational economic mobility. Maybe that was too many syllables for you, so I'll translate: Over here, if you're born poor, you stay poor. And we have fewer ways ways to help the poor get less poor than any other 1st world country in the world.

We provide a FRACTION of what is needed in terms of housing, food stamps, and especially medicaid. no single adult is even eligible for medicaid, and won't be until 2014, when the health care bill kicks in.

I would like to see more personal responsibility on the part of the bankers WHO DESTROYED THE ECONOMY AND THREW TENS OF MILLIONS OUT OF WORK. Currently there is one job available for EVERY FOUR APPLICANTS. Grace us with your pontifications about personal responsibility when there are NO JOBS.

The number one reason to be born poor is to be born into a poor family. The number one reason for staying poor is being born poor. If a single mother is from a wealthy family, you are likely to remain wealthy throughout your life. the converse is also true.

The US lags behind most of the developed world in intergenerational economic mobility.

We need FAR more government spending on social programs. We need FAR more government spending on job creation. We need far less subsidies for oil companies. We need to impose heavy tariffs on American companies that ship jobs overseas (or some other punitive measures). We need more and better regulation and funding of regulators to keep the greed inherent in capitalism in check. We need a truly progressive tax code with high marginal rates. We need to end local control and funding of education and nationalize it. We need to eliminate laws that inhibit labor unions. We need a living wage law passed. We need to get money out of politics. We need real democracy and a genuinely mixed economy. And we need to shoot every member of CATO (or at least deport them to Somalia).

All of Europe is not anything like Sweden of Norway, and that's precisely what I just described. The Soviet Union was not a democracy, which is what I described. The USA is not a real democracy right now, either, since money buys legislation and any tax break or subsidy the 1% ask for.

"The response of the government was to cut spending and institute a multitude of reforms to improve Sweden's competitiveness, among them reducing the welfare state and privatising public services and goods."

It could afford to do that after decades of insuring the welfare of its citizens through major government programs. Even after the cutbacks they are far (FAR) ahead of us in terms of their social safety net, living wage standards, tight regulations on businesses that protect workers and insure competitiveness, etc. They are far FAR more successful than we are in every measure of their citizen's lives. And they accomplish it all with a mixed economy.

if you think there isn't you're the one with mental problems.
there is equal opportunity , provided you qualify for the job you're going for , there are no 6 foot 230lb jockeys and there are no 5 foot 125 lb tackles in football. There is NO guaranteed outcome.

the schools are well funded, waste is the problem. No MD can turn away a sick person, that's the law. all types a food are available to everyone. if you need help there are food stamps, medicaid and wefare. there are free clinics.

In the preamble of the constitution it states that the government should provide for the general welfare of the citizens. I take that to mean all citizens. No where in the constitution does it say we should have a capitalist economy that supports the very wealthy and corporations while oppressing the rest.

provide for the general welfare does not mean "welfare", i.e. govt handouts, 99 weeks of unemployment, " free " breakfast , lunch and dinner in schools. What will the kids do in the summer when the schools are closed? will all the schools stay open at taxpayer expense? will the teachers aske for more money? ( more taxes to pay them causing property taxes to go up to pay for that.

Right. I agree. How about a fair economic system where none of those "entitlements" are necessary. How about valuing labor in a way that allows all Americans to live decently. And, how about a government that is not bought, paid for and controlled by the wealthy elite and corporations.

stop with the nonsense - go ahead and quit your job - nobody can take your place? sure after you make 250k and they tax you at a higher rate just stop working. as to the charity thing that money should be taxed and democratically directed by the gov't instead of by you - how many roads or schools have you built? and no - you don't really earn your $4,000,000 - not when the garbage man in my town makes 35k - he is more important than you and works harder!

charity is run by multi millionaires, show me one poor person that was helped by a "charity" in fact, people cannot donate to poor people, because they will be penalized in the form of a "gift tax". Our gov, and the evil powers that be have closed that gap also.

Salvation Army, United Way, Red Cross, Christian Children Fund, Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity etc. Donating to these organizations give you a tax deduction not a gift tax. I suggest you get a new accountant lol!

ur missing the point, look at the form 990 of these charities, i was just at st. judes hospital reading their form 990 and saw they paid 30 execs about $236,000,000 in salary, while only paying $15k in in patient care. heres the proof of this one. (u have to read 3/4 down to find the pay but its there) http://www.stjude.org/SJFile/990form-stjude-fy10.pdf Part way thru you will see one poor girl who got $30k but with a 1099 so she can get in trouble with the government in self pay taxes, leaving her not even enough to live on. ) I saw over 20 execs making over a milliion dollars a year in salary. Fact is form 990s prove that charities host some of the best paying jobs on earth. The salvation army pays their ceo 550k annually while paying $7.50 an hour to the poor bell giver. ARUP ceo made 1.5 million last year, from free blood donated, but then charge money to people who need it. Where do you think the money goes? here in my area, a man exposed the boyscouts of america president making over $630k a year, and this is why the boyscouts dont have enough money for their program, he got released from the church as a boy scout leader for telling the truth.

so find a charity you like - you think the government wastes less money hahaha! why dont you start your own charity & show us how it's done. Too much hot air by OWS. Do something productive instead of just criticizing everyone else

Some unreliable sources sometimes say things that are true, but sensible people wouldn't accept their statement that it is raining without a second source that is reliable. I don't think it is a lie. I think it is a statement from a liar without a corroborating source. I don't waste time reading or listening to sources that I would have to chase another source before I consider it.

Do we need to look further for evidence of the character of Mr. Romney? His positions on the issues that matter to me? He has totally agreed with me on each of them, at various times,....and with my adversaries. At least he can't be bought, by me.

But if you want a guy who will (fundamentally) disagree with you consistently, year after year, I know where you get one for only $25,000 per month. Or, I would do it myself, briefly but much cheaper. I like the comment below. I lived in Bountiful, Utah for a while. Well, it wasn't living, really.

It is a question of priorities really. I am more concerned about how he treated his Irish Setter. Putting a wet dog that is sick in a roof rack (he said it was air tight, which would have been even worse, but that isn't true either, of course) and driving for hours isn't greed. But it is cruel, which is worse.

The Mormon group does tend to conduct themselves like a corporation.I guess the mission time is a good apprentiship. When they get out they will be ready to fire people.I think that perhaps mittens learned a lot when he did his Mission in Paris.Other Americans serving in the war and he eating cheese.